If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.

“There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me — because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t… look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something: there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.

“If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

The point of Obama's remarks was not to explain the necessity of contributing taxes for the performance of vital public services, treating the government as a necessary expense. He’s explicitly stating that no one has ever succeeded, at anything, without the government’s indispensible assistance. The government is, therefore, the rightful owner of all property and wealth, morally justified in taking whatever it deems necessary.

He's absolutely correct. What's to disagree with. In fact, you can give credit to the size of our economy, monetary expansion policy, and lax control over the exportation of the dollar for most of the prosperity that we enjoy. It's pretty easy to understand what he's saying. If you don't get it, then go to Somalia and open up a store.

He's absolutely correct. What's to disagree with. In fact, you can give credit to the size of our economy, monetary expansion policy, and lax control over the exportation of the dollar for most of the prosperity that we enjoy. It's pretty easy to understand what he's saying. If you don't get it, then go to Somalia and open up a store.

If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that.

So my parents blood, sweat, and tears spent building their business wasn't because of them... it was because of someone else...

The point of Obama's remarks was not to explain the necessity of contributing taxes for the performance of vital public services, treating the government as a necessary expense. He’s explicitly stating that no one has ever succeeded, at anything, without the government’s indispensible assistance. The government is, therefore, the rightful owner of all property and wealth, morally justified in taking whatever it deems necessary.

You appear to believe that the government is the cause of everything positive in this country, while I believe that the people are the cause. You appear to believe that we are here to serve the government, while I believe that the government is here to serve us.

Who pays most of the taxes that pay for all of this? The top 1% pays over 70% of all taxes. Obama is just showing his marxist upbringing... "a man only gets rich riding on the backs of poor people". The Chicagoland Conman absolutely hates successful people that aren't standing in a soup line wanting the government to feed their families. The Democrats need and want people to feel ripped off and envious of people more successful than themselves. In a world when everyone is doing well the Democrats would be out of business.

The point is that everyone has had some help somewhere along the line. Some have had more than others, even if it's just the American system that allowed you or your parent's business to thrive. If you don't think so, ask yourself if you or they could have been just as successful if they were in any other country like maybe Mexico or North Korea. The answer is obviously no.

The point is that everyone has had some help somewhere along the line. Some have had more than others, even if it's just the American system that allowed you or your parent's business to thrive. If you don't think so, ask yourself if you or they could have been just as successful if they were in any other country like maybe Mexico or North Korea. The answer is obviously no.

I see your point, but my family owns and operates successful companies in the US, as well as Mexico. Therefore, my answer is obviously not no.

The point is that everyone has had some help somewhere along the line. Some have had more than others, even if it's just the American system that allowed you or your parent's business to thrive. If you don't think so, ask yourself if you or they could have been just as successful if they were in any other country like maybe Mexico or North Korea. The answer is obviously no.

BS! That is not the point, that is not the reason why our country is what it is today. The reason why our country offers the opportunities that it does is because of the people, not the government. It is because the government, historically here in the US, was not in control of every facet of your life. You were left to do what you wanted. You were in control of your life, not the government. The government's purpose was not to tell you what you could and couldn't do, its purpose was to protect the individual and individual liberty. The powers of the federal government were enumerated:

Clause 1: “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;” [boldface added]

Clause 2: “To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;”

Immediately after Clauses 1 & 2 follows the list of enumerated powers WE delegated to Congress:

Clause 3: To regulate “commerce” [For the Truth about the “commerce clause”, go here];
Clause 4: To establish uniform laws on Naturalization and on Bankruptcies;
Clause 5: To coin money & regulate its value, and fix the standard of weights & measures;
Clause 6: To punish counterfeiting;
Clause 7: To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
Clause 8: To issue Patents and Copyrights;
Clause 9: To set up federal courts “inferior” to the supreme Court [one may well ask how any court can be “inferior” to the supreme Court];
Clause 10: To punish Piracies & Felonies on the high seas and offenses against the Law of Nations;
Clause 11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque & Reprisal, and make rules for Captures;
Clause 12: To raise and support Armies;
Clause 13: To provide and maintain a Navy;
Clause 14: To make Rules for the land and naval Forces;
Clause 15: To call forth the Militia; and
Clause 16: To provide for organizing, arming, disciplining the Militia.

The reason why you can't build a business in Mexico or North Korea is because in those countries the individual has few rights and those rights are not protected.

Government didn't build this country, the Founding Father's foresight to limit and control government allowing the people to pursue their own personal endeavors for their own personal benefit did. You could work hard and reap the fruits of your labor mean.

Quote:

The point is that everyone has had some help somewhere along the line. Some have had more than others, even if it's just the American system that allowed you or your parent's business to thrive. If you don't think so, ask yourself if you or they could have been just as successful if they were in any other country like maybe Mexico or North Korea. The answer is obviously no.

You FAIL sir! You have not used your head, instead you have simply parroted what you have been told.

Obama is just playing a simple numbers game. There are many more poor people out there sitting on their asses and paying no taxes than business people that actually actually create jobs and do pay their share. I am sure crack heads built a lot of successful businesses by paying ass loads of taxes and building bridges while working 16 hour shifts. Yea, right.

I see your point, but my family owns and operates successful companies in the US, as well as Mexico. Therefore, my answer is obviously not no.

Maybe, maybe not. China owes much of it's progress to the American economy. A 1/2 trillion dollar trade deficit indicates that a lot of other countries are benefiting from the American economy, and most especially America's expansion of the money supply.

Off on another typical cut and paste rant there I see Tucker, Sam, Cliff or whoever. Read what Obama says, and I believe that is the point he's trying to make. It's pretty simple. Why he's making the point is a matter for discussion, but they concept of others having helped you along the way or the infrastructure here in the U.S. that allows some to thrive is a pretty basic one.

I'll agree the one-liner "If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that." is not the best statement. His point is clear, though - again not sure why it needs to be made.

In the areas that I'm from, if a business owner needs infrastructure stuff done, they build it themselves. The railroads and turnpikes were all initially private. Small business out west in the past had nothing to do with the government infrastructure. The government only provides infrastructure when the population in an area becomes large enough.

P.S. The government did not invent the internet so that business could make money off of it.

"Who pays most of the taxes that pay for all of this? The top 1% pays over 70% of all taxes."

I've seen some absolutely absurd crap on this board, but I belive this takes the cake.

The statement may be wrong; however, the intent of the statement is pretty close to reality...

The top 10% pays approximately 70% of Federal Income Tax. I assume part of your objection to the statement involves the various other taxes, e.g. sales tax, property, tax, etc... I could not find the data, but I would venture to guess that the percentages are similar.

You mean his objection couldn't be that it's off by a factor of 10? Not only that, but when people quote facts like this (assuming they get it correct), they don't seem to realize that the greater the percentage the top 1% or 10% pay of the total taxes, that it means the remaining percent are getting worse off. Amazing how a statistic that the greater it is, which translates to the masses being worse off, is then used to demonstrate why they aren't taxed enough.

When you see that the top x percent is paying more of the burden, the first thing that should concern you is.... what's going wrong in the economy that so many people are doing so poorly? It's not a defense for taxing high earners at a lower rate.

You mean his objection couldn't be that it's off by a factor of 10? Not only that, but when people quote facts like this (assuming they get it correct), they don't seem to realize that the greater the percentage the top 1% or 10% pay of the total taxes, that it means the remaining percent are getting worse off. Amazing how a statistic that the greater it is, which translates to the masses being worse off, is then used to demonstrate why they aren't taxed enough.

When you see that the top x percent is paying more of the burden, the first thing that should concern you is.... what's going wrong in the economy that so many people are doing so poorly? It's not a defense for taxing high earners at a lower rate.

The economy doesn't establish who is taxed, the government does... your premise is flawed. We should all pay the same percentage.

The original poster of that statement didn't make the distinction of Federal taxes, they said all taxes... Who pays the majority of real estate taxes? Gas taxes? Capital Gains taxes? Estate taxes? It isn't the poor...

The economy doesn't establish who is taxed, the government does... your premise is flawed. We should all pay the same percentage.

Dumbest statement ever that doesn't even reflect the slightest comprehension of the point. The question was never "Who is taxed". It's "Who pays what percentage". I guess they don't teach math, logic, or reading comprehension where you are getting a law degree.

If the tax code is static and the economy changes, the percentage that pay any particular amount of the total taxes changes. Good grief Tucker, are you really that unable to follow a train of thought as soon as the reality of it conflicts with your internal rage about the govt?

Dumbest statement ever that doesn't even reflect the slightest comprehension of the point. The question was never "Who is taxed". It's "Who pays what percentage". I guess they don't teach math, logic, or reading comprehension where you are getting a law degree.

If the tax code is static and the economy changes, the percentage that pay any particular amount of the total taxes changes. Good grief Tucker, are you really that unable to follow a train of thought as soon as the reality of it conflicts with your internal rage about the govt?

Sorry, I don't follow the old bitter Marxist school of thought that you prescribe to...

Quick, quick... before people pay attention to what's going on with Romney and his time with Bain and figure out that "retroactive retirement" is total BS... let's get em talking about other crapolla by taking some well-intentioned and reasonable comments by Obama out of context so that Rush Limbaugh can yack about how the guy hates America and we can cement him in right-leaning hearts and minds as a socialist/communist/Marxist/fascist... and a Nazi... and also, he's super gay... and black, don't forget how black he is... and not a citizen... plus, I hear he rides jet-ski's when he's not surfing and doing power turns.

I wanna see Rmoney's Mexican birth certificate. And who is Marxist blankety-blank? Sorry but I just don't keep up with all the rappers.

I doubt Romney believes "If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen." I would venture to guess that Romney believes that the his success was directly related to the effort and risk that he put in, not the result of the government.

I would venture to say that he believes his success was the result of many governments... Mexico and China for providing him workers for his businesses... India for taking some of those pesky jobs he shipped outa Massachusetts as governor... maybe Switzerland for giving him a nice, private place to hang stash all his cash... or Bermuda and the caymans for providing a tax haven. Or yes, indeed, our own good ole USofA for letting lobbyists control everything and making sure he could take advantage of all those loopholes.

I don't have facts and figures, links or cuts and pastes but let me say this: If government is responsible for all people, who create wealth and jobs, then why is not everyone a millionaire? It's easy. The person who had an idea, the intelligence, the dream and was willing to take the risk and put in the effort made it happen. There are plenty of folks out there who have been birthed, fed, boarded and even gone to school on 100% government support and don't have a d@mn thing to show for it. Why is that? Because they do not have the internal drive, common sense or any other intelligence to form an original thought to create the success.

Finally, if government is the reason for the success of all business, then they must be equally responsible for the failure of all business. Therefore......

I meant to say top 10% not 1% which is spot on... This ipad keyboard is miserable!! The biggest deal Obama ever strung together was the sweetheart deal on his house which I believe landed a guy in jail. His utter incompetence relating to business is no shock to anyone. Obama is awesome at getting people out of the workforce and on to food stamps. He is also brilliant enough to think unemployment should be endless and never temporary.

What about the kid that does nothing his whole life, but has wealthy family (let's call him person 1) and just lives off his family's wealth? Or what about the guy who busts his ass for 25 years at the same company, never calls in sick or misses a day, employee of the decade, and then comes in and is laid off because successful businessman owner decides to move the company overseas (he will be person 2)? By your reasoning, person 1 is a go-getter and savy businessman and person 2 is lacks "internal drive". It's shameful that we are reduced to determining a person's worth by the amount of money they have in the bank.

How does that chart (of who pays the taxes) not just just enrage some of you guys. All I hear from Obama is "fair share" BS, why are the 50% who don't pay federal taxes not paying their 'fair share'? Because its not fair to ask that of them? Because they already have it hard enough? Wtf?!?!?!

With his statement the other day, he is essentially telling people to just stop even trying. The only way a person will ever better themselves or achieve anything in this life is if he personally grants it to you with his magic little finger. What a piece of work....

And btw, if you work for the same company for 25 years and are expendable enough to be tossed out with the trash then you probably don't have the internal drive to create your own success. And who is saying that a trust fund baby is successful? Wealth, or the appearance of wealth, does not automatically translate to success.

I graduated a few years ago Rob and worked the whole time I was in school. Not to mention, I served in the Navy after high school, worked two jobs after I was discharged, and waited until I was 30 until I went to school so don't give me that crap that I don't know about paying taxes. My wife and my combined income places us in the higher tax bracket and I still don't cry and whine about the taxes we pay. Why not be happy with what you have and not bashing those that are less fortunate? It's like you have this sick poor envy. Why not join them if you think it's better to live that type of lifestyle?

What about the kid that does nothing his whole life, but has wealthy family (let's call him person 1) and just lives off his family's wealth? Or what about the guy who busts his ass for 25 years at the same company, never calls in sick or misses a day, employee of the decade, and then comes in and is laid off because successful businessman owner decides to move the company overseas (he will be person 2)? By your reasoning, person 1 is a go-getter and savy businessman and person 2 is lacks "internal drive". It's shameful that we are reduced to determining a person's worth by the amount of money they have in the bank.

Rob, your post warrants no response.

Jeremy, that is not really what Obama said. He said that government was (essentially) the creator of all small business and some entrepreneurs are just along for the ride. He didn't say anything about rich parents. However, I do see your point and it is very valid. I'm not a big fan of trust fund babies. I guess because I am not one. I also feel that people, as a whole, are too greedy. What you state is the Gordon Gecko mentality. If the bottom line is fatter and you make money for your investors then you are successful; no matter who you squash (or actually how many laws you bend or get away with breaking). It sucks. I shake my head every time I hear about the people who are crushed due to some individuals greed. So, I appreciate your insight and also appreciate your final sentence. We have been programmed, by media and other means, to believe that how many toys we have or how much money we have in the bank determines our success. I also fall into this trap. However, when I have my eyes wide open and take my greed out of the picture I feel the most successful person is the one who enjoys their job and is happy. Those two things is what we should strive for, not for a fatter bottom line.

However, with all that said, what makes it so advantageous for a businessman to take his company overseas? Is it his internal greed? Unions (a lot of small business are not unionized)? A lazy or just as greedy workforce? Or, is it government interference such as unrelenting and unreasonable EPA rules, taxes and now health insurance requirements. If government would get out of the way of business and create proper importing tariffs then this country would be much more prosperous. Maybe not immediately, but within a few years we should recover, or adjust to the sticker shock, from the adjusted prices of the now internally produced products or tariff influenced products we buy. I could be wrong. However, it is hard to believe that we can buy a product cheaper from overseas, that has been shipped 10 different times to get from one side of the planet to the other, than one that has been manufactured here.

I graduated a few years ago Rob and worked the whole time I was in school. Not to mention, I served in the Navy after high school, worked two jobs after I was discharged, and waited until I was 30 until I went to school so don't give me that crap that I don't know about paying taxes. My wife and my combined income places us in the higher tax bracket and I still don't cry and whine about the taxes we pay. Why not be happy with what you have and not bashing those that are less fortunate? It's like you have this sick poor envy. Why not join them if you think it's better to live that type of lifestyle?

Even though you've told us that numerous times, these guys will continue to post the same stupid accusation over and over. They lack reading comprehension skills. That's why they think the crux of Obama's message is that the govt built your business and the owner had nothing to do with it. It's called willfull stupidity.

They want Obama out so bad that they will convince themselves that he's the entire problem with unemployment and Romney will change everything. It's hard to believe that after the last decade that people could still follow that same line of reasoning. It's the same kind of reasoning that when the spread between the have and the have nots keeps getting wider, they point to the taxes paid by the top percent as an indication that they are taxed too high. Apparently these so called conservatives have zero cognitive skills short of... "Obama Bad, Romney Good"

However, with all that said, what makes it so advantageous for a businessman to take his company overseas? Is it his internal greed? Unions (a lot of small business are not unionized)? A lazy or just as greedy workforce?

What a dumb question. It's because it's much cheaper to produce products using labor that lives in conditions that we as Americans believe is substandard. IOW, instead of our govt protecting American society with it's economy and dollars. It's using our economic system to raise the standard of living elsewhere in the world while the counter effect is to lower the standard of living domestically.

We want health insurance, but we wan to buy from people who don't have it.
We want pensions and security in our old age, but want to buy from people who don't have it.
We want the worlds biggest military, but want to buy from people who don't have it.
We want the environment protected, but want to buy from people who don't protect it.
We want safety standards in the workplace, but want to buy from people who don't have it.
We want a reasonable standard of living, but want to buy from people who don't have it.

THat article is full of ridiculous conjecture and holes in it's logic. It totally ignores the loss of manufacturing jobs, and the economy in general. The same old conservative misguided line of reasoning that's always presented. I.E. businesses don't create jobs because of uncertainty in regulations. Once again ignoring the obvious... businesses don't create jobs because of uncertainty in future revenues and customer demand.

And how in the heck did SSDI get in there? More people are having mental problems because of Obama? It would never occur to a puppet mastered conservative that more people might be having mental problems because the medical industry is destroying their brains by freely dispensing very profitable drugs.

John, zero cognitive skills? I have a ton of facts, quotes from Obama, opinions from his own party...etc....to back up why I don't want him in office anymore. Some of us conservatives are voting against Obama more so than voting for Romney.

Brett, thanks for dragging me into this. I try hard now days to stay away from these types of posts. Obama supporters will never change my mind about him. I'm sure that his supporters will never be swayed either.

Rich, I found your first post to actually be pretty funny. It's sad to me that conservative talk radio is so polarizing. Although there is the occasional over the top rant, there is also some pretty good, accurate information. Instead of tuning it out, use it as a starting point to do some research on your own. Obama's own words can be pretty damaging to his campaign.

I do find it funny that the Obama camp is crying about having secrets. Those that are calling Romney out about off shore accounts and foreign investments, have some of their own. If Romney's campaign network is on the ball, they will bring this up. I find the fact that he is rich pretty funny as well. How many elected politicians a mega rich as compared to the people that vote for them. The Romney camp ought to point this out a s well....

oh, and to the point of the post....
From the video clip that started this thread, Obama uses the word "that" to refer to the streets and infrastructure. I will have to agree with him. As an owner of a few businesses, there has always been an existing infrastructure. This has been at the hands of local, state. not federal.

I do find it sad, as should we all, that Obama talks like he hates businesses and those that pour their life into building one. But, it's politics. He needs the votes from those that don't understand what it takes to start and run a successful business. You gotta "give him props" on campaigning. It is what he is best at.

John, you're not alone in this, but i just wanted to point out that your posts on political discussions used to be a lot less insulting. You're pretty quick to call someone dumb these days. you getting tired or what?

Definitely getting tired. It seems like in the last decade that a lot has happened to raise political consciousness. At the end of the Bush Presidency it seemed pretty simple that anyone who continued to believe that ignoring our economy to wage wars and nation build was pretty much out of touch. Then when Obama inherits a severely damaged economy, all the conservatives adopted the attitude that they could get him out of office by pretending that only an incompetent Democrat President couldn't magically fix it all despite the disaster being left by a Republican President.

What really irritates me is that our bad economy isn't because of Obama's policies. It's because of the economic factors that we have built to take advantage of all sorts of policies that basically involve everyone running the metaphorical credit card dry. And I don't mean just the deficit. Every aspect of our economy depends on other countries supplying our needs with money created out of thin air. We depend on it and the world depends on it. Most of this stuff is fundamentally simple, but people reverse the logic to put the blame elsewhere.

A good example is the "who pays what percentage of the taxes based on income". Instead of recognizing that when the top percent pay a greater share it means the less than top percent is doing worse, it's interpreted as the top percent are paying too much. When it should be interpreted as the top percent are doing exceeding well. Especially when the statistics also indicate a widening gap in wealth,

And yeah... when people say stupid crap like... "Well when you get a job you can talk.", or "You are a Marxist" I can pretty much tell that addressing the issues with them is pointless. It doesn't take any great cognitive skills to understand Obama's point. You live in a society that provides economic opportunities because of the stable infra structure provided by both govt and many other people.

You can't make money if you don't have the environment that provides the opportunity. Businesses aren't making new jobs because the environment isn't as stable as it used to be. It's hard to predict a customer base when your customers either don;t have jobs or are forced to use up greater percentages of their disposable income on basic necessities like healthcare, transportation, insurance, energy.

People need to understand that supporting Obama doesn't mean you worship him or think he's a great President. It might very well mean that the opinion is the Republican alternative is just worse. When I see Republican's attacking the message like the one in this thread, I don't know whether they are just ignorant of fundamental principles, or they are just playing political football by talking sh*t without any regard for reality. The sole purpose being to win the game. The problem is that the media continually plays political football and the fans seem to think the message reflects reality.

Ten years ago I was a lot more naive about politics. More to the point I was apathetic about it. But it seems that now it's more important than ever for people to become grounded in their political beliefs and start paying more attention to the fundamentals. Because it doesn't seem like being oblivious and seeing voting as a game to win is going to help at all.

I see the real problem with 50% of the people paying 97% of the taxes is that there is no incentive for the 50% that pay no taxes (or get back more than was withheld) to push their elected representatives to spend responsibly.

Terry, what makes you think that you want the bottom percent telling the politicians what to do? Isn't that what you are already afraid of? Do you really want to give them a big incentive to change govt more in their favor?

BTW, in case that post above was TL;DR... If you look at my arguments you rarely see me, if at all trying to make up a lot of crap about why Romney would be a horrible president. Compare that to the political rhetoric posted by people who want Obama out. My arguments always revolve around the pros and cons of policies, and how they impact the economy on a fundamental level. IMO, Obama has done little more that propagate the status quo. Which is what I would expect from Romney.

What about the kid that does nothing his whole life, but has wealthy family (let's call him person 1) and just lives off his family's wealth? Or what about the guy who busts his ass for 25 years at the same company, never calls in sick or misses a day, employee of the decade, and then comes in and is laid off because successful businessman owner decides to move the company overseas (he will be person 2)? By your reasoning, person 1 is a go-getter and savy businessman and person 2 is lacks "internal drive". It's shameful that we are reduced to determining a person's worth by the amount of money they have in the bank.

Interesting you look at it as worrying about the rich person. The trust fund baby is not the draw on the economy so i not even the point. While we all can a agree that a poorly acting trust fund baby would be something to be looked down upon, I don't thank that is even in the discussion.

John, You talk about rhetoric about the president, then you did not pay attention at all during the last republican presidents term. Everything from katrina, to hating black people to started the wars, to letting 9/11 happen on purpose, to hating the environment, hoping poor people die, and the list goes on and on. Obama has actually got a big pass from this crowd over the last few years.

On your contention that the top percent of people paying more in taxes (income) is a sign of the economy being bad or the lower classes doing bad is not necessarily true. It is a statistical break down. They are percentages not a indication of how much money either class has.

Quote:

What a dumb question. It's because it's much cheaper to produce products using labor that lives in conditions that we as Americans believe is substandard. IOW, instead of our govt protecting American society with it's economy and dollars. It's using our economic system to raise the standard of living elsewhere in the world while the counter effect is to lower the standard of living domestically.

This is why I am so against democrats on the national level. They are about spreading the wealth on the global scale. All national policy is about spreading the wealth. We just had another policy where republicans helped stop the democrats from sharing the wealth. The Treat of the Sea I think it is called. That was to take all revenue from oil produced by American Companies in the open ocean and give those taxes to the UN to spend. Obama was for that too.

Delta, the Iraq war is squarely on Bush's shoulders. He deserves recognition for that mistake. WRT the rest of the stuff, yeah it's just rhetoric. Bush causing/letting 9/11 happen is conspiracy stuff that goes on to this day. So Obama got a pass from who for what? When you say "that crowd", I have to say between the Iraq war, Katrina, and 9/11 conspiracies you are talking about 3 diverse audiences. Are you saying that he got a pass for not ending the wars sooner, or closing Guantanamo. If that's the case then I can imagine that he's getting a pass because if Obama isn't going to do it then there is no one left to pin your hopes on.

WRT to your analysis of my top percent tax issue, I simply can't see what you are trying to say. Are you saying that a statistical breakdown doesn't mean anything? And yes it's not a direct indication of how much wealth you have, but how much you earned. But that seems to be a pointless distraction because if the top percent is getting bigger I can't think of how it got that way except by earning more. They are intrinsically linked.

Delta, I find it hard to believe that only Democrats are about spreading the wealth on a global level. The very economic core of our nation and a philosophy shared, although not consciously by both parties is about spreading the wealth on a global level. The weight and influence of our dollar is dependent on it as well. How else do you expand the money supply without the dollar devaluing?

We want health insurance, but we wan to buy from people who don't have it.
We want pensions and security in our old age, but want to buy from people who don't have it.
We want the worlds biggest military, but want to buy from people who don't have it.
We want the environment protected, but want to buy from people who don't protect it.
We want safety standards in the workplace, but want to buy from people who don't have it.
We want a reasonable standard of living, but want to buy from people who don't have it.

It is when you take it out of context (like you just did) just like the conservatives are being blamed of doing today for what Obama said.

Your list is great but a bit absurd because you can't place the words "but want to buy from people who don't have it" on everything. Who fails who? Government for failing to properly tax importing and for not stopping illegal immigration? Or the consumer who has no choice but to buy goods and services from offshore since that is all there is on the shelves at most stores? Try to buy American and almost any place you shop. You can't.

Also, I do not 100% blame Obama. The economy was tanking before Bush left and that is why the GOP sent in the sacrifical lambs in '08. However, I do not see that he has been responsible with his spending nor his power. It's not my way or the highway. It's a democracy with checks and balances.

Just to be clear, is it your opinion that this statement by Obama is being taken out of context,

If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.

or another? If you are talking about the above statement, please tell us what context Obama was using, and please tell us what his statement means...

He was talking about my response to the question.... "What makes it advantageous to take your biz overseas". Which was a somewhat rhetorical question leading to the supposedly obvious answer... workers want too much money.

He was talking about my response to the question.... "What makes it advantageous to take your biz overseas". Which was a somewhat rhetorical question leading to the supposedly obvious answer... workers want too much money.

What do you think the reason is that businesses move jobs to over seas? Because they are greedy and want to make more money?

The problem I see with unions and people feeling this way is that what is better, having the business moving some of their work overseas and staying in business or closing the doors and walkign away leaving nobody with a job. Unions consistantly want more yet never look at the effects of their actions. Just keep wanting more because that is better for the workers. They would rather take more and more until they bankrupt the company or have the company move jobs overseas, so the business can stay competetive, then to give up some to keep the US jobs. My families business use to have a carb rebuild shop. The workers voted on whether or not to join the union. They were told up front that if they went union we would shut down our carb shop and none of them would have jobs. Guess what the idiots did. Voted to join the union and we shut down the carb shop. We wouldnt' of been able to make money keeping the shop open so why even deal with that par tof the business. Did the union help those workers there. Nope. Unions breed laziness and really have no place these days.

I would love to see a flat % tax across the board. That really is the only "fair" way to do it. I would love to see all those idiot whiners talking about it not being fair that rich people get tax breaks after a flat tax rate. They would be worse off but how they whine about it not being fair. It would be 100% fair by definition. The problem I see is that a lot of these whiners think they automatically deserve crap like a cell phone, a car, a nice apartment, nice clothes, etc.. You don't deserve any of that crap just because you have a pulse. Then people say how are you suppose to support a family on minimum wage jobs. Why does anybody automatically have the right to have children. If you can't afford to have children have the sense to not have one. Why should someone who can afford all the nice stuff have to pay for you to raise your children.

I never once defended unions. And I never once had anyone other than myself fight for a dime I made. I agree that companies and govt agencies should never be forced by law to negotiate a contract.

WRT the flat tax. I think that it will never work, and people would never vote for it. You have to remember that the avg worker already pays a 15% flat tax before be begins to pay income tax. Yeah queue the business pays half the 15%. But you cannot spin it any other way than compensation for the worker's effort. No business ever paid that 7.5% for an employee that didn't work for them. Just like a pimp (govt) never got a dime for a ho (worker) that didn't show up for the john (business).

All those things you listed clothes (must have to work), cell phone (must have to get a job), car (must have to get to work), apartment (must have to anything incl work) are part of the economy. If people weren't buying them then nobody would have jobs. There is a certain amount of fixed overhead it costs just to function and make a living. It makes sense to allow people who make little more than that fixed overhead to get a break from income tax. Seeing as how they are still paying the same tax as billionaires paying 15% on long term capital gains.

Just to be clear, is it your opinion that this statement by Obama is being taken out of context,

If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.

or another? If you are talking about the above statement, please tell us what context Obama was using, and please tell us what his statement means...

No, it is not mine. Most (Obama supporters) seem to be protecting Obama by stating this. I believe it is a slap in the face to all business owners. In reality, but in my opinion, Obama is "playing the room" which he is great at and why he won the first election with zero experience at anything tangeble.

I made my money on my own thank you very much. Coming from a poor family I busted my balls to get good enough grades to get a scholarship to a good school. I did that while working part time so my younger siblings could eat. Then I busted my balls some more to get an engineering degree, then I busted my balls solving some problems which lead to me owning some patents which got me to where I am today. I now work only occasionally, not for money but for the intellectual challenge, I live on a lake, have nice things, and will never need to worry about money again.

Fact is I made something from nothing, and I didn't bust my balls so I could write welfare checks for people to sit on a couch and play with their balls.

There is a certain amount of fixed overhead it costs just to function and make a living.

And there it is. Has today's society made it cheaper in the long and short run just to have another kid and get paid to stay home and not have to worry about what time to get up, whose gonna watch the children and how to get there? And with no expiration date of benefits? There was a chart the other day in a recent thread which showed this salary break.

I hate this class warfare crap, but it is so easy to get caught up in.

Fact is I made something from nothing, and I didn't bust my balls so I could write welfare checks for people to sit on a couch and play with their balls.

Let's get the facts straight:

The government allowed you to make something from nothing and allowed you to bust your balls so government could write welfare checks for people to sit on a couch government gave them, so goverment could allow them to play with their balls.

I am not rich, but I pay a butt load in taxes. I am not able to buy a wakeboard boat and a nice house because of someone else. I have earned it by working my ass off. Why do people that make less than 50k pay no taxes at all? Why should all of us have to pull all the weight? I am supposed to work everyday sometimes up to 14hrs a day and I should pay a greater percentage because I "don't need it as much". I don't care if you make $24k a year you should pay the same percentage I do. That is fairness!

I wouldn't hire this guy to run a McDonalds. He doesn't have the experience. If he wants fairness and thinks Europe and socialism is great or if you do move there and leave my Utopia alone.

I know he is the first black president and that is really romantic, but what a horrible showing. I wish out first black president was a women named Condi!

There is no way that this is a serious statement, because if you believe that people "that make less than 50k pay no taxes at all", you must be delusional or something.

"I don't care if you make $24k a year you should pay the same percentage I do. That is fairness!"

Again, more attacks on the poor. This is what irritates me the most about most conservatives. They don't realize that there are people that could take what the whiners make over the course of their lifetime, light it, and roast marshmallows over it, and not think twice; and these people are paying a smaller "percentage than they do", yet no mention of them. It's always about the poor. The rich get a pass. That is when America really changed for the worse, when we decided to wage wars on the poor instead of waging wars on poverty. And I am not advocating more social programs, I am simply saying this: Next time you and your GOP buddies get together, start watching old Reagan speeches, begin crushing beer cans on each other's heads, and then start ranting about the poor taking advantage of the system, just remember that there is a millionaire taking advantage of the same system.

And all of you GOPer's that think nothing can be taken out of context in a president's speech, what about "Mission Accomplished"?

And I am still catching up because I was driving back from KY today, but with regards to the flat tax. Studies have shown that a flat tax is going to result in a tax increase for 85% of Americans (and it's not the bottom 15% that is exempt from that increase). So how do you expect that to ever garnish support?

And there it is. Has today's society made it cheaper in the long and short run just to have another kid and get paid to stay home and not have to worry about what time to get up, whose gonna watch the children and how to get there? And with no expiration date of benefits? There was a chart the other day in a recent thread which showed this salary break.

I hate this class warfare crap, but it is so easy to get caught up in.

How did you interpret my post to be about welfare when I repeatedly put each item in the context of getting or having a job, and then went on to state that no matter how little you make, you are still paying a 15% flat tax before computing income tax?

Again, more attacks on the poor. This is what irritates me the most about most conservatives.

What irritates me is how they make their beliefs more and more repugnant to the majority who then feel justified in voting the opposite. They are literally unable to use one ounce of psychology to make more people see things their way, and recognizing the consequences of alienating a majority where it's one person, one vote.

Advocating a flat tax is like praying for God to smite all the poor and middle class, which most likely includes themselves as well.

Honest question-regarding you busting your balls for a scholarship to a good school...it sounds like you were a 'need based' applicant. This seems kind of like a left leaning social program idea that is intended to level the playing field to a degree. Do you approve of making it easier for not only minorities, but lower income applicants to get a scholarship? It seems like a blip in a conservative line of thinking. Personally, I found it extremely frustrating that I got denied every scholarship I applied for despite graduating 4th or 5th in my HS class, posting very good SAT scores, extra curriculars, etc. Even after my freshman year in college I got denied despite continued hard work and good credentials, likely because my parents are paying my tuition and we are not a need based family. However, my parents have many other things they should be able to spend money on and not have us be penalized for making money. I work during college and pay for plenty of things. A scholarship would take lots of strain off of me and my parents. I found it very disappointing and frustrating because I worked hard all through high school to earn a scholarship but I understand why it is the way it is. What do you think?

"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I traveled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer." - Ben Franklin - Relating to prices and the poor, 1766

In Chicago the liberals have ruled for decades if not centuries, they have every program imaginable for the poor; however, are they actually any better off? I personally know dozens of families who have lived in subsidized housing for three generations. They know of no other life style.

I guess you missed the sentence where I stated: "And I am not advocating more social programs,". Reread it, it's in there. Me saying there is a war on the poor in no way says, "I feel the government needs to give more".

How did you interpret my post to be about welfare when I repeatedly put each item in the context of getting or having a job, and then went on to state that no matter how little you make, you are still paying a 15% flat tax before computing income tax?

That is not what I meant. What I meant to imply, by your comment regarding the amount of "overhead" to have a job, is that many look at what it costs to go to work and decide to remain on the government trough. It may not be what you said or meant, but it is a fact. In my case, the wife looked at what she made, what daycare cost, the care my son would receive at said daycare and decided to stay home. We were blessed that our expenses were managable for a single income.

A great example is a fellow at work. He had a great family and a good life. Simple but happy. The wife decided having a couple (lower rent areas) of houses and paying bills was just too much. She wanted to go back to Public Housing to escape. They divorced and he married someone who wanted to have a job with health care, pay taxes, pay off the house, have a retirement and travel. His ex just wanted to enjoy the good life of public housing, no job an no worries.

Just to be clear, is it your opinion that this statement by Obama is being taken out of context,

If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.

or another? If you are talking about the above statement, please tell us what context Obama was using, and please tell us what his statement means...

Quote:

"If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help," Obama said. "There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen."

The antecedent to "that" is not the business, but "roads and bridges," as well as the "American system" as a whole.

I know, I know, It's very difficult to understand. I'm off to go and scrub my eyeballs

Our country and our constitution provides you with opportunity, not the government. We go with the premise that all men are created equal and have equal opportunity to pursue happiness by risking time and energy to produce whatever level of wealth we wish to attain. This does not mean we are guaranteed success. Some wish to risk more than others. Some are lucky and others are not. It does not guarantee luck, or fortunate starting point. It only guarantees opportunity. This was in contrast to Brittain where no amount of effort could change your class.

You cannot legislate the removal of failure. Having the right to succeed comes with the right to fail. There will always be the poor and/or unlucky.

Taxes should be fair, and everyone should have some skin in the game. It should be simplified to one simple flat tax percentage.

"attack on the poor"... funny, most liberals are only are generous when it comes to giving away other people's money. Look at Joe Biden... he gives almost nothing to charity yet has the nerve to talk about compassion to those less fortunate. Look at Obama... his own 1/2 brother lives in a hut in Kenya and received no financial support from Obama whatsoever yet this guy has the nerve to actually say "look out for your brothers".

I think Obama's speech in Virgina is a good example of the real Obama unleashed. He was off the teleprompter and saying what he really believes... His real agenda is to attack the successful and keep taking more and more. The real Obama was the guy sitting in Rev Wrights church listening to those anti-American rants while

I wonder how many of the people that agree with the Chicagoland Conman have actually ran a business or hired someone? I respect different views but have honestly ran into almost no one in the last couple years that think the guy has been anything but a complete disaster for their businesses. The economy sucks right now and Obama is doing his best to further weaken it.

That is not what I meant. What I meant to imply, by your comment regarding the amount of "overhead" to have a job, is that many look at what it costs to go to work and decide to remain on the government trough. It may not be what you said or meant, but it is a fact. In my case, the wife looked at what she made, what daycare cost, the care my son would receive at said daycare and decided to stay home. We were blessed that our expenses were managable for a single income.

You misinterpreted my post. I was listing all of the things that you need to purchase to have a job. And there is more than that if you consider adding child care. My point was a progressive tax rate (and the standard exemption, plus individual exemptions) cut people a break on taxes for the basic overhead of earning the money the govt takes a cut of. It's not much different that a deduction businesses take for overhead costs.

Is it easier to start a business in the Congo or the USA? Infrastructure, educated workforce, rule of law, etc....

If Mexico or the Columbia were such better places to start businesses we'd see a lot more businesses going there.

You have to be semi-retarded to read the president's comments as saying anything other than that.

Are you insulting yourself? Obama's comments are rooted in Marxism and represent the idea that the government is responsible for the successes people have in America, not the people.
Obama’s statement, in fact his whole campaign speech in Roanoke, suggests good society is derived from good government. Truthfully, it is that good government is derived from a good society. And history shows us that the best societies, generating the best governments, are those societies that value private property. Societies founded on a private property right are far more stable than others. What Obama suggests when he says, “If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen,” is that you owe more than your exchange of your private property to another for them building your business — you owe government too.

This is pure Marxist Fascism being preached as a virtue. Government control of business to employ the Marx ideology of ‘FROM EACH according to his ability TO EACH according to his need’. For the MarxoFascists like Obama, Statist Government central planning is the answer towards implementing that policy by force. Obama is now sermonizing the virtues of this ideology, and he would not be doing so in major campaign speeches unless the MarxoFascists assume that they now have total control to reveal what they really are all about.

What did Obama really meant when he said he was just days away from ‘fundamentally transforming The United States of America”?

The Statists now preach openly that what you have is due to everyone else’s labor, money and effort. Not your own. The sum of this preaching is to fool the people to accept the narrative that everyone is required to “share ” what they have, especially if you have more than others. If you have more than others, the State is justified in having it confiscated from you by redistribution, taxation and regulation for the purpose of making you recognize your place is to support the state – not yourself.

This is what Obama means when he uses the words: ‘collective salvation”; “shared sacrifice” and so on. It’s a narrative that empowers a permanent slave class that is dependent on the State taking from what is left of the Producers in the country – to redistribute to Obama’s army of welfare constituents and illegal Mexicans. This is about destroying the free market and burying Capitalism under their boots.

Obama is espousing the doctrine of Marx that entrepreneurs don’t build businesses, the government does. That is why multiple billions of our tax dollars were given to now-defunct green energy money laundering companies like Solyndra, who have gone bankrupt and made off with all your money. Ultimately, entrepreneurs are irrelevant in Obama’s Amerika, the Government is god and will build business and regulate business. This is Fascism – in it’s purest definition authored by Benito Mussolini.

The State will decide who lives, who dies, who gets to eat and who does not. Who gets to make money and who does not. Who gets a job and who does not. Who gets government welfare and who does not. Anyone who is not a ‘true believer’ in the MarxoFascist ideology and whom does not act within it’s dictates – gets nothing, and even what they have will be taken from them.

Socialism has four main tenants:
1. The principle of redistribution.
2. The labor theory of value.
3. The falling profit margin.
4. Reform vs. revolution.

Go ahead, look them up, this is Obama and I can point to exact quotes of his espousing the ideals of each tenant. If you want me to post them I will. It doesn't take much analysis to take Obama's words at face value and conclude that he adheres to Marxist ideology. One cannot be a pro-free-market capitalist and assume that any success is built solely on exploitation of a lower class. The assumption of the very existence of lower classes is un-American. Our society was built on the idea of Liberty. That liberty is exactly what created our exceptional American society that has prospered like no other nation in history, not the government.

One of the most important applications of Liberty is the ability of any individual to use their talents to prosper and rise up out of poverty, or to choose to stay right where they're at.

Actually do some research on Obama, who and what was Frank Marshall Davis? How did Obama know him? Did Obama's mother actually attend the Little Red School? What was it? And on and on...

Yawn. Sam/Tucker, some things government does well. Please show me a prosperous first world society without government funded roads, schools, police, defense, and the rule of law. Those are not Marxist ideals, they are prerequisites to prosperity.

Yawn. Sam/Tucker, some things government does well. Please show me a prosperous first world society without government funded roads, schools, police, defense, and the rule of law. Those are not Marxist ideals, they are prerequisites to prosperity.

How about the United States of America?

I didn't say that roads, schools, police or defense is Marxist, I said that Obama's ideals are. I don't have the time or patience to teach you everything...